877 N.W.2d 555
Minn. Ct. App.2016Background
- On May 24, 2014, Debra Fawcett was involved in a two-vehicle crash; officers detected signs suggesting alcohol use and she reported drinking earlier.
- Officers read an implied-consent advisory and obtained a search warrant authorizing a blood draw; medical staff drew blood at the hospital.
- BCA testing showed no alcohol but detected a THC metabolite and alprazolam; Fawcett had a valid alprazolam prescription.
- State charged Fawcett with criminal vehicular operation alleging impairment by drugs.
- At a pretrial omnibus hearing (no live testimony), the district court suppressed drug-test results, ruling that the warrant authorizing the blood draw did not permit testing for controlled substances.
- The state appealed, arguing that once blood is lawfully obtained, subsequent chemical analysis (for intoxicants) is not a distinct Fourth Amendment event requiring a new warrant.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Fawcett's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chemical analysis of a lawfully obtained blood sample for controlled substances is a separate Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant | Once blood is lawfully obtained, the subject loses any expectation of privacy in test results for intoxicants; chemical analysis is not a distinct Fourth Amendment event | The warrant authorizing the blood draw did not authorize testing for drugs; subsequent drug testing required a particularized warrant | The court held chemical analysis of lawfully obtained blood (for intoxicants) is not a separate Fourth Amendment event and does not require a new warrant, absent unreasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (recognized blood draws as searches and treated seizure and chemical analysis as a single Fourth Amendment event)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (chemical analysis is a privacy intrusion but testing for alcohol/drugs fits government interests considered by court)
- United States v. Snyder, 852 F.2d 471 (9th Cir.) (viewed blood draw and testing as a single Fourth Amendment event)
- Harrison v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 781 N.W.2d 918 (Minn. Ct. App.) (held implied-consent blood testing for alcohol does not implicate a privacy interest)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (addressed exigency and the need for warrants in blood-draw contexts)
- State v. Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670 (Minn.) (procedural standards for pretrial appeals and related Fourth Amendment precedent)
- State v. McMurray, 860 N.W.2d 686 (Minn.) (reasonableness standard and expectation of privacy analysis)